Lopez-Ruiz, Arnaldo

AbstractBackgroundReliable and valid tools to screen for malnutrition in the intensive care unit (ICU) remain elusive. The sarcopenia index (SI) [(serum creatinine/serum cystatin C) × 100], could be an inexpensive, objective tool to predict malnutrition. We evaluated the SI as a screening tool for malnutrition in the ICU and compared it with the modified‐NUTRIC score.Materials and MethodsThis was a historical cohort study of ICU patients with stable kidney function admitted to Mayo Clinic ICUs between 2008 and 2015. Malnutrition was defined by the Subjective Global Assessment. Diagnostic performance was evaluated with the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and multivariable logistic regression.ResultsOf the 398 included patients, 181 (45%) had malnutrition, with 34 (9%) scored as severely malnourished. The SI was significantly lower in malnourished patients than in well‐nourished patients (64 ± 27 vs 72 ± 25; P = 0.002), and reductions in SI corresponded to increased malnutrition severity (P = 0.001). As a screening tool, the SI was an indicator of malnutrition risk (AUC 0.61) and performed slightly better than the more complex modified‐NUTRIC score (AUC = 0.57). SI cutoffs of 101 and 43 had >90% sensitivity and >90% specificity, respectively, for the prediction of malnutrition. Patients with a low SI (≤43) had a significantly higher risk of mortality (HR = 2.61, 95% CI 1.06–6.48, P = 0.038).ConclusionThe frequency of malnutrition was high in this critically ill population, and it was associated with a poor prognosis. The SI could be used to assess nutrition risk in ICU patients.

The objective of this study is to describe the pharmacokinetics of lacosamide in a critically ill adult during continuous venovenous hemofiltration (CVVH). A 78-year-old male developed sepsis and acute kidney injury following cardiac surgery. He was initially treated with intermittent hemodialysis but developed nonconvulsive status epilepticus at the end of the first session and was subsequently initiated on CVVH. In addition to lorazepam boluses, levetiracetam, and midazolam infusion, he was loaded with lacosamide 400 mg intravenously and started on 200 mg intravenously twice daily as maintenance therapy. Noncompartmental modeling of lacosamide pharmacokinetics revealed significant extracorporeal removal, a volume of distribution of 0.69 L/kg, elimination half-life of 13.6 hours, and peak and trough concentrations of 7.4 and 3.7 mg/L, respectively (goal trough, 5-10 mg/L). We found significant extracorporeal removal of serum lacosamide during CVVH, which was higher than previously reported. This led to subtherapeutic concentrations and decreased overall antiepileptic drug exposure. The relationship between serum lacosamide concentrations and clinical efficacy is not well understood; thus, therapeutic drug monitoring is not routinely recommended. Yet, we demonstrated that measuring serum lacosamide concentrations in the critically ill population during continuous renal replacement therapy may be useful to individualize dosing programs. Further pharmacokinetic studies of lacosamide may be necessary to generate widespread dosing recommendations.